Three-Year Outcome Data of Second-Line Antiretroviral Therapy in Ugandan Adults: Good Virological Response but High Rate of Toxicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and virological response to lopinavir/ritonavir containing second-line therapy after failing a first line nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) based regimen. DESIGN: Prospective 36 months cohort study of patients switched to zidovudine/stavudine plus didanosine plus lopinavir/ritonavir capsules as second-line regimen. METHODOLOGY: Structured interview, medical examination, and laboratory assessment performed every 6 months. RESULTS: We enrolled 40 patients; 1 died and 3 were lost to follow-up. Median CD4+ count at baseline was 108 cell/microL, median log viral load was 4.8 copies/mL. Sixteen (40%) patients had baseline genotypic resistant test, 14 (87%) had lamivudine resistance mutations, and all had NNRTIs resistance mutations. At month 36, 82% of the patients achieved viral suppression (<400 copies/ mL) and the median increase in CD4+ count was 214 cell/microL, (interquartile range: 128-295). Twenty-five patients (62%) experienced at least one adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms lopinavir/ ritonavir-based second-line regimen but with a high rate of toxicities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".